| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 4860 = 1966 SLD 4860 = 1966 PLD 11 |
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 86 of 1962, decided on 9th July 1965.
Presented By: Faizullah Khan, J
Sh. Allah Bakhsh for Petitioner. Shah Zaman Khan and S. Usman Ali Shah for
Respondents.
Civil Revision No. 86 of 1962, decided on 9th July 1965.
Presented By: Faizullah Khan, J
Sh. Allah Bakhsh for Petitioner. Shah Zaman Khan and S. Usman Ali Shah for
Respondents.
KHAN SAHIB-Petitioner
VERSUS
NASIM KHAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Law: West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959
Section: 25(4),4,4(5)
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation [C. M. L. A's Regulation No. 64 of 1959], Paras 25 (4) & 4 read with Notification No. ASR-468/62/3939 LC dated 16-7-1962 published in Gazette of West Pakistan dated 26-2-65-Exchange of whole or part of area less than subsistence holding-Valid, provided conditions laid down in Notification fulfilled-Transaction made prior to publica tion of Notification - Deemed valid - Martial Law Regulation [C. M. L. A's], No. 64-A. West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation [C. M. L. A's Regulation No. 64 of 1959], Para. 4(5)-Order of Commission duly notified in official Gazette--Deemed to be retrospective in effect. Dates of hearing : 5th and 9th July 1965. JUDGMENT The question raised in this revision petition is, whether and exchange by a person who holds an area less than subsistence holding is hit by Martial Regulation No. 64 or 64-A. This point, in my view, stands concluded by the Gazette of West Pakistan, dated February 26, 1965, issued by the Land Commission vide No. ASR-468/62/3939-L. C., dated the 16th July 1962, under which "a land owner, having less than the area of subsistence holding, has been authorised:---- To alienate, by way of gift, the whole or part of his holding to any of hispresumptive heirs, and To exchange the whole or any part of his holding with the area held by otherland owners in the same village, deh or mauza. It will be plain from reading of the notification, reproduc ed above, that exchange ofwhole or part of an area less than subsistence holding has been authorised, provided the other condition are fulfilled namely, that both the lands, which are the subject-matter of exchange, are situate in the same village, deh or mauza. Admittedly, the land, which is the subject-matter of the presumption suit, giving riseto this revision petition and the land, which has been given in exchange, are situate in the same village, and, therefore, the exchange is not hit by the mischief of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 or 64-A. Unfortunately, the notification, referred to above was not brought to the notice of the learned Courts below, who…